3 ms·

> the fact that they're not on a blockchain is an implementation detail. For a good reason. The blockchain doesn't add much over a database. Players being able

by gs17 2y ago

> the fact that they're not on a blockchain is an implementation detail. For a good reason. The blockchain doesn't add much over a database. Players being able to sell their items? Steam does that without a blockchain, albeit not for real money. Being able to take items between games? Almost no devs (or players) really want that. But blockchain would add difficulty changing things if there's a bug with the items (or not, but you lose the "security" it's supposed to add).

LargeWu 2y ago
If you invested hundreds of hours into a game and accumulated a significant pile of rare items with in-game utility, and then decided you were done with the game, would you rather a) have the option to sell them for real money or b) have the option to sell them for in-game currency (which you will never use) or c) not have any marketplace options?
- duskwuff 2y ago
  c). I play games to have fun, not to make money. And I'd rather not play games where success is determined by how willing you are to open your wallet.
- nerdjon 2y ago
  You're talking about a closed system for a single game though, what exactly does a blockchain actually give you in that example? All 3 of those are possible with a traditional database. Even if they wanted to provide a system for sharing those assets and other marketplaces being able to built on top of it, a blockchain still doesn't actually provide any benefits.
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  A lot of them intentionally are not supposed to be sold for real value because in many jurisdictions, combining that with lootbox or drop mechanics would immediately make the game subject to gambling regulations. Game dev companies don’t want that, they want to keep selling you stuff. See: games like the Sims
- gs17 2y ago
  I'd rather not have the marketplace, honestly, and I'm someone who got more than I paid from TF2. Trading items for items isn't so bad (maybe), but we don't need to make things even more pay-to-win. Games should be about having fun, not second jobs, unless you're playing a simulator where your fun is doing the job.
- cogman10 2y ago
  A real-world market attached to a game would be the fastest way imaginable to suck all the fun out of a game. I don't want to play games where 90% of the players are using the game to try and beat capitalism somehow. There are 100 reasons why this'd destroy gameplay. * The majority of players would be concentrated on the highest value grind tasks. * Scams would be rampant. They are already rampant in games without this mechanic. Now imagine how bad they'd be if your items had actual monetary value hooked up to them. * Gang like behavior is pretty much guaranteed to emerge. So, it wouldn't be just one player grinding like crazy, but groups of players dedicated to making the game miserable for anyone grinding on their turf. * It would encourage actual real-world problems/crime. Now instead of being able to meet up with people and talk about the game, you run the risk of being mugged or stalked for game currency. Just a really terrible idea. And these things I'm talking about aren't imaginary. There're already more than a few articles about games like EVE Online and WoW where the marketplace of those games has led to the problems I listed. EVE's "Real life threats" policy didn't show up because it wasn't a problem [1] [1] https://support.eveonline.com/hc/en-us/articles/8562706800924-Real-Life-Harassment-Threats-Policy https://support.eveonline.com/hc/en-us/articles/856270680092...
  - gs17 2y ago
    > Gang like behavior is pretty much guaranteed to emerge. For example, one of the times it happened to RuneScape (which also has constant scammers too!): https://www.reddit.com/r/2007scape/comments/imnp0g/every_single_p2p_world_is_now_locked_down_at/ https://www.reddit.com/r/2007scape/comments/imnp0g/every_sin...
- ClassyJacket 2y ago
  Blockchain helps none of those things in the slightest.
dingnuts 2y ago
Steam doesn't let you bequeath your account or anything in it and can ban you from your account at any time with no recourse. If my game licenses were on the Blockchain I could give them to my kids when I die. Feels weird explaining this on HN.
- gs17 2y ago
  The discussion was more about in-game items than game licenses, but that falls under "almost no devs really want that". Devs want to be able to ban problem players from their games. Devs want (or at least would prefer) you to have to buy a new copy of a game instead of a cheap used one. It would be nice if we could transfer the licenses, but the developers don't want that. And it also doesn't require blockchain. Valve not allowing it isn't a technological limitation, it's a policy. The system can't stop you from leaving a sheet of paper with your username and password on it, but Steam can ban you if they somehow find out.
- wnevets 2y ago
  > Feels weird explaining this on HN. Go ahead and explain how the tech of a Blockchain prevents Valve from doing what it wants with the game licenses it sells.
- nucleardog 2y ago
  How do you enforce the blockchain on Valve? If they go into the Steam server code and add: if username = 'dingnuts': return 403 How do you get your games back? (Hint: You don't.) So now you're back to "a database hosted at Valve" with extra steps.
- ClassyJacket 2y ago
  And how do you enforce that Valve implements and respects the blockchain? You can't, and if you do you can just force them to respect a traditional database. Feels weird explaining this on HN.
- throw646577 2y ago
  Well, you couldn't, as the licences stand, because they are specifically non-transferrable too, right? In the wording.
PaulHoule 2y ago
For a while my son was playing this game https://krunker.io/ https://krunker.io/ which has rather good trading mechanics in the game (for non-NFT objects) and has a total of 20 or so NFT objects in the game. A handful of players own most of them, for instance there is only one type of watch you can wear in the game and there are only five of those and four of those belong to the same person. My son did see someone wearing a watch. You can't say the NFT ruined the game for other players but you also can't say it is a success, I wouldn't say that until you have broad participation in ownership and trading.
wnevets 2y ago
> For a good reason. The blockchain doesn't add much over a database. The people doing all of the hyping up not understanding the tech is why I find all of this so amusing. > Steam does that without a blockchain, albeit not for real money. FYI you can buy in game items for real money on their market [1] [1] https://steamcommunity.com/market/listings/730/AWP%20%7C%20Asiimov%20%28Field-Tested%29 https://steamcommunity.com/market/listings/730/AWP%20%7C%20A...

by gs17 2y ago

LargeWu 2y ago

If you invested hundreds of hours into a game and accumulated a significant pile of rare items with in-game utility, and then decided you were done with the game, would you rather a) have the option to sell them for real money or b) have the option to sell them for in-game currency (which you will never use) or c) not have any marketplace options?

duskwuff 2y ago
c). I play games to have fun, not to make money. And I'd rather not play games where success is determined by how willing you are to open your wallet.
nerdjon 2y ago
You're talking about a closed system for a single game though, what exactly does a blockchain actually give you in that example? All 3 of those are possible with a traditional database. Even if they wanted to provide a system for sharing those assets and other marketplaces being able to built on top of it, a blockchain still doesn't actually provide any benefits.
bobthepanda 2y ago
A lot of them intentionally are not supposed to be sold for real value because in many jurisdictions, combining that with lootbox or drop mechanics would immediately make the game subject to gambling regulations. Game dev companies don’t want that, they want to keep selling you stuff. See: games like the Sims
gs17 2y ago
I'd rather not have the marketplace, honestly, and I'm someone who got more than I paid from TF2. Trading items for items isn't so bad (maybe), but we don't need to make things even more pay-to-win. Games should be about having fun, not second jobs, unless you're playing a simulator where your fun is doing the job.
cogman10 2y ago
A real-world market attached to a game would be the fastest way imaginable to suck all the fun out of a game. I don't want to play games where 90% of the players are using the game to try and beat capitalism somehow. There are 100 reasons why this'd destroy gameplay. * The majority of players would be concentrated on the highest value grind tasks. * Scams would be rampant. They are already rampant in games without this mechanic. Now imagine how bad they'd be if your items had actual monetary value hooked up to them. * Gang like behavior is pretty much guaranteed to emerge. So, it wouldn't be just one player grinding like crazy, but groups of players dedicated to making the game miserable for anyone grinding on their turf. * It would encourage actual real-world problems/crime. Now instead of being able to meet up with people and talk about the game, you run the risk of being mugged or stalked for game currency. Just a really terrible idea. And these things I'm talking about aren't imaginary. There're already more than a few articles about games like EVE Online and WoW where the marketplace of those games has led to the problems I listed. EVE's "Real life threats" policy didn't show up because it wasn't a problem [1] [1] https://support.eveonline.com/hc/en-us/articles/8562706800924-Real-Life-Harassment-Threats-Policy https://support.eveonline.com/hc/en-us/articles/856270680092...
- gs17 2y ago
  > Gang like behavior is pretty much guaranteed to emerge. For example, one of the times it happened to RuneScape (which also has constant scammers too!): https://www.reddit.com/r/2007scape/comments/imnp0g/every_single_p2p_world_is_now_locked_down_at/ https://www.reddit.com/r/2007scape/comments/imnp0g/every_sin...
ClassyJacket 2y ago
Blockchain helps none of those things in the slightest.

dingnuts 2y ago

Steam doesn't let you bequeath your account or anything in it and can ban you from your account at any time with no recourse. If my game licenses were on the Blockchain I could give them to my kids when I die. Feels weird explaining this on HN.

gs17 2y ago
The discussion was more about in-game items than game licenses, but that falls under "almost no devs really want that". Devs want to be able to ban problem players from their games. Devs want (or at least would prefer) you to have to buy a new copy of a game instead of a cheap used one. It would be nice if we could transfer the licenses, but the developers don't want that. And it also doesn't require blockchain. Valve not allowing it isn't a technological limitation, it's a policy. The system can't stop you from leaving a sheet of paper with your username and password on it, but Steam can ban you if they somehow find out.
wnevets 2y ago
> Feels weird explaining this on HN. Go ahead and explain how the tech of a Blockchain prevents Valve from doing what it wants with the game licenses it sells.
nucleardog 2y ago
How do you enforce the blockchain on Valve? If they go into the Steam server code and add: if username = 'dingnuts': return 403 How do you get your games back? (Hint: You don't.) So now you're back to "a database hosted at Valve" with extra steps.
ClassyJacket 2y ago
And how do you enforce that Valve implements and respects the blockchain? You can't, and if you do you can just force them to respect a traditional database. Feels weird explaining this on HN.
throw646577 2y ago
Well, you couldn't, as the licences stand, because they are specifically non-transferrable too, right? In the wording.

PaulHoule 2y ago

For a while my son was playing this game https://krunker.io/ https://krunker.io/ which has rather good trading mechanics in the game (for non-NFT objects) and has a total of 20 or so NFT objects in the game. A handful of players own most of them, for instance there is only one type of watch you can wear in the game and there are only five of those and four of those belong to the same person. My son did see someone wearing a watch. You can't say the NFT ruined the game for other players but you also can't say it is a success, I wouldn't say that until you have broad participation in ownership and trading.

wnevets 2y ago

> For a good reason. The blockchain doesn't add much over a database. The people doing all of the hyping up not understanding the tech is why I find all of this so amusing. > Steam does that without a blockchain, albeit not for real money. FYI you can buy in game items for real money on their market [1] [1] https://steamcommunity.com/market/listings/730/AWP%20%7C%20Asiimov%20%28Field-Tested%29 https://steamcommunity.com/market/listings/730/AWP%20%7C%20A...